Curiously I have just this minute finished rereading Bernard Fall's excellent, if now somewhat dated "Street Without Joy". First published in 1961, it clearly identifies these 3 points and a good few more as contributory factors in France's misery. You can have all the Lessons Identified claptrap you want but if you find convenient ways to ignore/massage what you know to be true then you're in trouble.

True, the technological explosion complicates matters but you ignore the small bands of determined men ideologically committed to a cause at your peril. We seem to have perfected this art and are really rather good at it. Which is a worry.

I'm not convinced by the genetic IQ argument. If there is a genuine difference, and measuring, even defining, IQ is not as simple as height or weight;

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but an interesting theory, and one that allows for cultural and educational change but with an underlying and major genetic factor, and has been well researched. Of course horribly politically incorrect.

Your other points are absolutely agreed with though interesting to see that despite hacking and concentrating on advancing their engine technology they still seem to be a bit behind.

Firstly to show a genetic difference you need to show what actual genes differ between the populations you're studying and show that this is a statistically significant change from one population to the other. No such reliable study has ever been undertaken. To do so would be a massive undertaking, not just in taking the samples but in analysing the data.
So if you could/had shown that two populations were genuinely significantly genetically different you would need to show which gene, among those that are different, was causing the effect. So if UGT1A13 is the cause of Chinese improved IQ then British children of non Chinese decent with UGT1A13 would also be statistically significantly more intelligent. {UGT1A13 is a real gene but it's unlikely to be anything to do with intelligence]. The picture is muddied by the fact that if it is genetic it's unlikely to be one gene, it's more likely to be several probably working in conjunction. Unraveling this sort of thing is orders of magnitude harder than looking for a single defective gene causing an illness.
Then there's the issue of IQ tests themselves, the links below will give you some idea of current perceptions in the academic community.What Do IQ Tests Test?: Interview with Psychologist W. Joel SchneiderThe Disadvantages of IQ Testshttps://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/npb/people/amc/articles-pdfs/aspeinte.pdf
Lets say it's not a sound argument that IQ test results really tell you anything.

Finally we don't make a priori assumptions in good science that's the prerogative of racial supremacists/apologists, creation scientists and others of similar dubious credentials. The scientific method is to assess the data and draw the most likely conclusion. I'd suggest that the consensus on the most likely conclusion at present is, "We don't have the data to make a scientifically meaningful statement".

Click to expand...

I disagree with all of that.

On the first point, you can easily test a population by determining the characteristics of that population. You don't need to find the exact gene responsible for intelligence (assuming that there is a singe gene, which is extraordinarily unlikely), to just need to define your population appropriately. People of Asian origin living in the UK/US is perhaps too broad, but it's easy to narrow down.

IQ tests are very much up for debate in terms of what they show, but there is a measurable difference in IQ test performance between different populations. That in itself is significantly

Lastly, the scientific community makes a priori assumptions all the time. That is how you arrive at a hypothesis to test. You said that you believe the difference is more down to socialogical factors - why? That is an a priori assumption. There's certainly no data to suggest it.

Absolutely, but an interesting theory, and one that allows for cultural and educational change but with an underlying and major genetic factor, and has been well researched. Of course horribly politically incorrect.

Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with his contention that groups will develop to suit their environment, or that although it hasn't be proved that development will involves elements of genetic selection. I do take issue with his contention that IQ testing shows inherent differences between racial groups and that these are genetic, for the reasons I've outlined in my post above.

I'm not convinced by the genetic IQ argument. If there is a genuine difference, and measuring, even defining, IQ is not as simple as height or weight; then I suspect it's more likely due to teaching methods, or just the amount of effort put in. If China has a real advantage I'd suggest its the number of engineers involved at senior levels, people who have been trained to make things work as opposed to make things sound like they'll work. It also helps that they can do so without having to worry unduly about getting elected, although I'll bet the internal politics of promotion within the party hierarchy makes Westminster and Washington look like playschool. Nor do they have to be particularly nice to the common people who stand in their way.

Click to expand...

At work the other day someone said "yeah of course the Chinese can throw 4 PHds paid nothing at any problem"

With less than 1 percent of the population serving in the military, the divide between the military and American society is growing ever deeper. Moreover, those who do serve are often the same 1 percent from one generation to the next, since the vast majority of those who volunteer are related to someone who has served. Milley recognizes the dangers inherent in that divide, both for the military and for our larger society. Surprisingly, he put the onus on closing that gap squarely on those who wear khaki and camouflage:

On the RN side of the house, I recall this point being discussed at 2SL's Board of Management meetings in the 1990s.

Beyond the rather old fashioned 'Keeping the Army in the public Eye KAPE' activities,which are routinely constrained by lunatic bean counting, I'm not convinced that we are doing well on this point.

The General's background with American 'Them' probably gives him a slightly different perspective from Big Army career soldiers.

I imagine British Army trainers are also urging people to think non-insurgency, heavy metal war again?

National Guard and US Army Reserves both go through full-time basic training and advanced training before resuming their civilian lives and putting in the one weekend a month.
So despite not being full time soldiers, they got the same start to their reserve careers as professional soldiers.

National Guard and US Army Reserves both go through full-time basic training and advanced training before resuming their civilian lives and putting in the one weekend a month.
So despite not being full time soldiers, they got the same start to their reserve careers as professional soldiers.

That's the advanced training...length of which depends on MOS. So corps training like infantryman or gunner is itself an MOS, but so is linguist, IT specialist or EOD. I've heard they can go from a few weeks to a year but I've no idea how the longer courses would be broken down, my only National Guard friend was infantry.